Maternity protection cannot be reduced to salary and designation; woman entitled to same or equivalent role after leave: Delhi HC

Justice Sachin Datta, in a significant judgment pronounced on August 31, 2026, said that a woman returning from maternity leave is ordinarily entitled to be restored to the post she held immediately before proceeding on leave. If that post is no longer available for bona fide and demonstrable organisational reasons, she must be offered a position as nearly equivalent as possible in terms of pay, grade, status, role, responsibilities, managerial authority and prospects for advancement.

The Court made the observations while deciding a petition filed by Chartered Accountant Rakhi Bisht, who alleged that she was subjected to professional disadvantage after disclosing her pregnancy and returning from maternity leave.

The High Court held that Section 12(1) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which prohibits an employer from varying to a woman's disadvantage any conditions of her service during her statutorily protected absence, is not confined to termination of employment.

The Court said the expression "conditions of service" covers the substantive incidents of employment, including the nature and content of duties, grade and functional status, reporting hierarchy, supervisory responsibilities and consideration for appraisal and promotion.

"Retention of the same designation and remuneration is, therefore, necessary but not by itself sufficient" where other aspects of employment are changed to the employee's detriment, the Court held.

The Court said permitting an employer to maintain an employee's salary and designation while stripping her of meaningful responsibilities, authority or career prospects would allow the employer to achieve indirectly what the law prohibits directly.

It observed that such an interpretation would reduce Section 12 to a mere formality and defeat the object of maternity legislation, which is intended to protect the dignity of motherhood, economic security and a woman's professional standing.

The Court declared that a woman returning from maternity leave is ordinarily entitled to restoration to her previous post.

Where the post has genuinely ceased to be available for demonstrable organisational reasons, the alternative position must be substantially equivalent not merely in salary but also in grade, status, role, responsibilities, managerial authority and career advancement prospects.

The employer must also inform the woman, before she resumes duty, why her earlier post is unavailable and provide details of the proposed alternative position, including its grade, remuneration, reporting relationship and duties.

If she objects to the proposed arrangement, the employer must consider the objection and communicate its decision through a reasoned written communication.

The Court further clarified that a woman may herself seek adjustments to her duties, working hours, workplace, work pattern or an alternate role after maternity leave. Such an arrangement, however, cannot be treated as consent to diminution of her service conditions or waiver of statutory protection, nor can it be used against her in appraisal, increment or promotion.

The employer had argued that the petition was not maintainable under Article 226 because it involved a private employment relationship and contractual service conditions.

The High Court rejected the objection, holding that Bisht was seeking enforcement not of a contractual term but of the statutory protection contained in Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act.

The Court noted that Section 27 of the Act gives its provisions overriding effect over inconsistent terms of an employment contract. It therefore held that the statutory obligation imposed on an employer cannot be bypassed merely because the employer is a private entity.

The Court also rejected the argument concerning an alternative statutory remedy, observing that the dispute involved fundamental rights and constitutional questions concerning equality, dignity and maternity protection. It noted that the relevant rules and schemes under the Code on Social Security, 2020 had not yet been framed.

Bisht, who had around 14 years of professional experience, was appointed as Manager, Accounting in 2022 at a monthly salary of Rs 2.60 lakh.

According to her case, she informed the management about her pregnancy in May 2023 and was subsequently transferred to another team. She proceeded on maternity leave in December 2023 and returned in July 2024.

Upon returning, she was told that her original position was no longer available and was assigned to the Treasury Department. She alleged that the work was substantially inferior to her earlier managerial accounting responsibilities and that she was left without reporting staff and excluded from managerial meetings.

The employer disputed the allegations, maintaining that her designation, level, salary and seniority remained unchanged and that she had been assigned investment accounting and currency revaluation functions at the same managerial level following organisational restructuring.

During the proceedings, the petitioner was represented by advocates Parul Singh, Kunal Kher and Harshita Jain. Advocate Sanjeev Mahajan appeared as Amicus Curiae, assisted by advocate Simran Rao.

The Union of India was represented by CGSC Ashish Dixit, along with advocates Umar Hashmi, Gautam Yadav and Iqra Sheikh, while advocates Mumtaz Bhalla and Prapti Allagh appeared for respondent no. 2.

However, the Court took note of inconsistencies in the employer's own pleadings and communications. It noted that the employer had stated that Bisht's earlier role was given to another employee who had been promoted during her absence. An internal communication reproduced before the Court also discussed assigning her activities merely to "keep her engaged" when she returned.

The Court also examined Bisht's grievance regarding the absence of a functional creche.

She had asked the employer about the facility in September 2024 and was informed that it was not available at that time. The employer later stated that the facility existed but was not functional on the relevant days.

The High Court held that a creche facility which is not functional when an employee seeks to use it does not satisfy the statutory obligation under Section 11-A of the Maternity Benefit Act.

The Court directed respondent no. 2 to pay Bisht Rs 10 lakh as compensation and Rs 1.5 lakh as costs. The amount was fixed keeping in view her professional standing as a Chartered Accountant with approximately 14 years of experience and her monthly salary of Rs 2.6 lakh. The Court noted that the compensation was approximately equivalent to four months' salary.

The amount and costs are to be paid within eight weeks, failing which they will carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of judgment until realisation.

In a wider direction having implications for private employers, the High Court directed the Union of India to exercise its powers under Sections 149, 150 and 154 of the Code on Social Security, 2020 and frame rules or schemes, or issue directions, for effective implementation of maternity protections.

The framework is to cover pregnancy-related workplace accommodation, protection of role and status after maternity leave, lactation support, creche disclosure and functionality, timelines for maternity-related grievances, protection against retaliation and designation of authorities to receive and decide complaints, including urgent interim protection. The exercise has to be completed within six months from the judgment.

The Court's proposed framework also contemplates written assessment of pregnancy-related accommodation requests, protection against forced leave or acceptance of an inferior role, reasoned written decisions affecting an employee's role or reporting structure, and safeguards against retaliation.

The Court concluded that the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15, 21 and 42, read with maternity legislation, require that pregnancy and motherhood cannot become a source of professional disadvantage.

It accordingly disposed of Bisht's petition with the above declarations, compensation and directions, while recording its appreciation for the assistance rendered by Amicus Curiae Sanjeev Mahajan and CGSC Ashish Dixit. (ANI)